or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do iem,s burn in? - Page 4

post #46 of 98

This we do know:

 

resistors, capacitors, degrade over time. But, does this mean after 100+ hrs of use, the components have changed, and the SQ has changed?

 


Edited by FullCircle - 6/26/11 at 9:00pm

The Wizard

Here at Noble, we craft some of the finest universal and custom in-ear monitors available today. 

Reply
post #47 of 98

I think the term, "burn in" should be defined, I think it's like any other terms being thrown around here, people use it without an agreed definition of the terminology.  Stating it seams to burn-in(whatever it means) because I believe so based on hearing sessions are not too reliable. I say it's really not worth the debate because of so many variables involved.  

post #48 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user02 View Post

I think the term, "burn in" should be defined, I think it's like any other terms being thrown around here, people use it without an agreed definition of the terminology.  Stating it seams to burn-in(whatever it means) because I believe so based on hearing sessions are not too reliable. I say it's really not worth the debate because of so many variables involved.  



The problem with defining it is that not everyone will agree on a set definition, besides that, there are multiple definitions to it.  The general definition of it would something along these lines:

  • Burn in (bərn-in):
    1. n. Used as a timeframe: Time required to reach a headphones, amp, or [headphone] cable's final sound signature
    2. v. The act of running, using, or playing a pair of headphones, an amp, or [headphone] cable through various noises, sounds, normal music, or other sound file to obtain its final sound signature
    3. n. Referring to the act of burn in (see definition 2)
    4. n. A term used on the Head-Fi forums that causes huge discussion and intense conversations that often lead to arguments.
    OTHER FORMS (Note prefixes and suffixes go at the end of the first compound word "burn"): burning in (progressive), burned in (past)

    HISTORY: Derived from the words burn and in.  No idea why.

 

There's a definition...  Seems to sum it up well while being as unbiased as possible.  Even if you don't believe it works, you should be able to agree on the definition. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 6/26/11 at 11:02pm
post #49 of 98

I don't understand how your examples prove a point?  I don't even know your stories are even true.  Let me ask  you this.  Lets say at a certain level causes hearing damage, would you like to measure to verify?wink.gif  Science, experiements are done for verification.  Even Newton's.  It is not true until proven experimentally.  Which would you believe, some crazy dude saying something is true because of his perception as tool or experimental proof using unbiased tools?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post



 

You know...  Lots of great scientist used no machines to measure sound...  They did it entirely off of perception *cough*NEWTON*cough*.  And he was able to create calculus, derive 3 law of motion, and much more just off of perception (which also has too many variables, physical and psychological).  You test, and you test again.  If you hear a sound difference, not it.  Then the next person does the same test, and if they hear a sound difference, they note it.  This has been done numerous times over and over again.  He confirms my results with the Apple IEMs (there is a big difference).  The change in sound however is the variable here (it can be fast or slow).  If you don't notice it, it could be a slow change of sound, but it does occur.  This is science, nothing is skewed in doing an experiment like this.  As he said, the change was DRASTIC (IE, anyone will be able to hear it.).  Since the change is big, error is going to be minimal since it's going by a pass fail basis.  Now, proving through science is only half of the battle, people also have their own opinions.  Some people still believe the world is flat (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/).

 

Remember, you don't need 100% accuracy to prove something, sometimes 15-20 is acceptable (sometimes more) to prove something is happening.



 


Edited by user02 - 6/26/11 at 11:14pm
post #50 of 98


     Yes, but if components degrade over time, and this degradation process changes SQ, then there would never be a "final sound signature" that is unless, "final sound signature" means total silence due to component failure...

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post





The problem with defining it is that not everyone will agree on a set definition, besides that, there are multiple definitions to it.  The general definition of it would something along these lines:

  • Burn in (bərn-in):
    1. n. Used as a timeframe: Time required to reach a headphones, amp, or [headphone] cable's final sound signature
    2. v. The act of running, using, or playing a pair of headphones, an amp, or [headphone] cable through various noises, sounds, normal music, or other sound file to obtain its final sound signature
    3. n. Referring to the act of burn in (see definition 2)
    4. n. A term used on the Head-Fi forums that causes huge discussion and intense conversations that often lead to arguments.
    OTHER FORMS (Note prefixes and suffixes go at the end of the first compound word "burn"): burning in (progressive), burned in (past)

    HISTORY: Derived from the words burn and in.  No idea why.

 

There's a definition...  Seems to sum it up well while being as unbiased as possible.  Even if you don't believe it works, you should be able to agree on the definition. 



 

The Wizard

Here at Noble, we craft some of the finest universal and custom in-ear monitors available today. 

Reply
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

 I'm good for me.bigsmile_face.gif

It seems you are.

 

post #52 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user02 View Post

I don't understand how your examples prove a point?  I don't even know your stories are even true.  Let me ask  you this.  Lets say at a certain level causes hearing damage, would you like to measure to verify?wink.gif  Science, experiements are done for verification.


Just to be clear about that point, you can't actually take a bunch of people and make some of them go deaf, it wouldn't pass a review board because it's unethical. Further, if you look it up (I'm in goodvibes' school of not doing too much work for internet debates!), there is actually no set limit for hearing loss--some people have hearing damage at lower volumes than others--as it varies between people.

 

As for burn-in, there are a number of people who have taken two sets of an iem, one with a 100hrs use, one brand new and compared them. These people hear differences, maybe more, maybe less, but some difference. As goodvibes said, it won't convince anyone who doesn't want to change their mind.

 

post #53 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user02 View Post

I don't understand how your examples prove a point?  I don't even know your stories are even true.  Let me ask  you this.  Lets say at a certain level causes hearing damage, would you like to measure to verify?wink.gif  Science, experiements are done for verification.  Even Newton's.  It is not true until proven experimentally.  Which would you believe, some crazy dude saying something is true because of his perception as tool or experimental proof using unbiased tools?
 



 


How do my examples prove a point...  There is a control and a variable.  The variable is the newness of a pair of headphones.  The control is everything else, seal, timing, burn in, device, etc were all left the same.  At this point, if I hear a difference, not only a difference but a major difference, then it proves the point.  This is science, you aren't force to agree with it, just understand that this was a valid experiment and these are the results. 

 

You saying if you don't know whether my stories are true is just pure ignorance.  Science is not only about proving a point through experimentation, but keeping an open mind that something can be false (which I have been doing).  I really don't see you doing any experiments, just downsizing everyone else's. 

 

Your second question is irrelevant to the subject.  Like said before, this is immoral.

 

You didn't get the fact about my information about Newton.  In his time and age, there was no such thing as a meter, heck, there was no such thing as a unit of measurement...  All he had were observations.  That is what is presented here.  It's still science, and it was tested extensively without units until units were created.  If that was accepted back then, then it should be accepted now.  Observations are observations, and you should except them (unless you have research that states otherwise?).

 

Which would you believe, some crazy dude saying something is true because of his perception as tool or experimental proof using unbiased tools?  I'd believe the crazy dude until I saw otherwise, either in a well written and accepted text, or for myself.  Perception is what the core of science was originally based off.  We got so far with perception alone.  Even measurements made with such unbiased tools are perceived.  To the naked eye, I'll let you use a ruler, measuring tool, etc; what's the difference between 11.1mm and 11.2mm?  How about 11.9nm and 12nm?  Everything is perceived; nothing is 100% accurate. 

 

Like said before, a small error rate is always accepted (10-15%).  A bigger change in sound will created less accuracy rate.  As stated before, the changes are dramatic, which means that others can go ahead and perform this test on their own.  I'm not telling you not to do it.  Go out and do it.  Listen for yourself. 

 

post #54 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by user02 View Post

I don't understand how your examples prove a point?  I don't even know your stories are even true.  Let me ask  you this.  Lets say at a certain level causes hearing damage, would you like to measure to verify?wink.gif  Science, experiements are done for verification.  Even Newton's.  It is not true until proven experimentally.  Which would you believe, some crazy dude saying something is true because of his perception as tool or experimental proof using unbiased tools?
 

 

Avery good mentor of mine is trying to put together documentation as to why and how Yoga and Yoga meditation is good for you. He is more than qualified and has been a leader in bring Yoga into the US since the early 70's The problem is You start doing Yoga, and your life improves no doubt, but then because of this, you start eating better, you have a better attitude, dumbasses don't bug you as much and so on. So is it the Yoga or the Diet that has fixed those past physical problems. Well the Yoga led to the better diet and attitude but prove it....you cannot. So it has to left to the individual that knows...So Listen to it for yourself...........

And my answer of Course there is burn in in BA's too regardless of what engineers and Manufactures may say. Not just crossovers, everything, cable, fit (fit to me is considered burn in or worn in or use to) and the drivers. So when someone here says how can you listen to those Sm3's or those W3's, say to yourself, "because you're a dumbass and I'm not")  :D

post #55 of 98

No.  I've had my UM3X for over 6 months now, literally no discernable sound difference.  I've acclimated to their signature, sure, but the speakers themselves have not physically changed one iota.


Edited by joshuamercer - 6/27/11 at 12:43pm
post #56 of 98

Updates on my experiments:

 

10hrs burn-in, not much difference from previous results

50 hrs burn-in, not as able to differentiate without a/b, sound of the new ones getting a lot closer to the old, however, I'm still able to 100% pick out after a/b in a blind test.

 

 

post #57 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuamercer View Post

No.  I've had my UM3X for over 6 months now, literally no discernable sound difference.  I've acclimated to their signature, sure, but the speakers themselves have not physically changed one iota.


I'll accept that there might not be any audible burn in for the UM3X.  However, is it possible that the change is so slow (over a period of time) that you just didn't notice it?  Note that small changes over a long amount of time are big.  This could be one of the major reasons why people don't hear burn-in, the change is slow, you don't notice it. 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by ronrad View Post

Updates on my experiments:

 

10hrs burn-in, not much difference from previous results

50 hrs burn-in, not as able to differentiate without a/b, sound of the new ones getting a lot closer to the old, however, I'm still able to 100% pick out after a/b in a blind test.

 

 


Good to hear they are doing that.  With only 50 hours too.  So much for BAs needed less than 50 hours of burn in :p

 

post #58 of 98

I e-mailed a Knowles rep. this question....

 

The rep had never even heard of the concept of a "burn in" and he had been with Knowles for over 10 years. 

 

But this is just one employee of knowles....

 

but again even if BA's do not change, other components could....   (capacitors, resistors)

 

so I decline to offer an opinion at this point in time

 

 

The Wizard

Here at Noble, we craft some of the finest universal and custom in-ear monitors available today. 

Reply
post #59 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FullCircle View Post

I e-mailed a Knowles rep. this question....

 

The rep had never even heard of the concept of a "burn in" and he had been with Knowles for over 10 years. 

 

But this is just one employee of knowles....

 

but again even if BA's do not change, other components could....   (capacitors, resistors)

 

so I decline to offer an opinion at this point in time

 

 


BAs have small moving parts (it has a moving arm), although they don't require as much burn in, they still do need burn in.  This is as long as you believe in this concept.  Not everyone has heard of burn in, it's ignorant to believe so.

 

post #60 of 98

TinyMan,  I never implied that everyone has heard of a "burn in" and in fact I stated "ONE EMPLOYEE."

 

"But this is just one employee of knowles....

 

but again even if BA's do not change..."

 

 

 

As I said before, I decline to offer an opinion.... until I see real data.

 

But I will offer just a touch more light to this. About 7 years back, GnResound did some research on directional Microphone Drift, and the mics were produced by Knowles. Gn Found that mics showed directional pattern drift, after the mics sat unused in a box after 6 months....

 

How does that relate....?  I'm not sure, but you can draw your own conclussions.

 

 

The Wizard

Here at Noble, we craft some of the finest universal and custom in-ear monitors available today. 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: